dofuswikifandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Cizagna/Sandbox04
see: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ParserFunctions i'm not so sure about the double line though. --ilmarine 16:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC) :Thanks i think i need to work with the switch one but never try before, if i could just fully understand this there would be so much interesting things --Cizagna (Talk) 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC) ::Well just saw the modifications will do some minor adjustments of words and in the name of the roman god mercury we can implement it. though should we use the code aggro? or leave the one with aggressive? and should we change to art? or keep it with artwork?--Cizagna (Talk) 20:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC) ::mmm instead of numbers should we use words like "yes", "no", " " (empty field).--Cizagna (Talk) 20:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC) ::should we make more rigid the picture name same as weapon box?. Also I tested the switch and it work the reduction of code is wonderful but i cant seem to make the option in case they type something totally wrong and thats a very nice feature --Cizagna (Talk) 22:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC) The thing is, that i really don't think we should use the non-aggressive format. For me the most logical thing would be - grey for neutral/non-aggressive, red for aggressive/might be aggressive. Also, making the creature name inside the text a link is pointless (you already are on that page). So, for me the best wording would be Warning: This monster may be aggressive!. This would make the text short (because there are monsters with really long names) and would cover the aligned monsters who can be aggressive if you are the wrong alignment. Also, this would simplify the code: if we only check if the aggressive field is present and filled in with something (of course we should actually check that the value is :not 0 or false) then show aggressive info, else show us neutral box. Just my ideas. --ilmarine 05:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC) :The wrong one its basically an option it was already there i just use it, and was a good way of "fail safe" in case some on put something else that was not what we require. the 3 color idea was mainly to keep visual track of monsters that we know that are aggressive, and are passive if we don't know and wikia has a gray one the person that sees that will think "hey its passive goes ahead and gets aggro and does drama basically, but now that you mention it for alignment another color would be require as its aggressive to some and non aggressive to others, and the npcs/monsters that are non aggressive (like the one on forest labyrinth. And i thinking that it would be better to remove the wording below instead as the info will be mention on the content of the page stating its aggesive range, or conditions. But my question on top still unanswered, and a new one should we add an aggressive category? thought i see the category rather superfluous.--Cizagna (Talk) 19:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Still, i would only go for aggressive/neutral. It's the easiest solution, I have already explained my reasoning to use Warning: This monster may be aggressive!, and the text should anyway contain specific ingo about aggressiveness - the border and short message is just to get attentions and for people to find out quickly. As for your worries about people getting aggressions by some monsters - mistakes get made everywhere all the time. The beauty of wikia is that anybody can prevent future mistakes from happening. You could use the same reasoning when, for example, somebody dies on a crit hit because we list the damage as lower. Note about a category aggressive monsters: I think there is one already, and yes, we should tag monsters with it. (Lirielle, btw, have you figured out if there is info about aggressiveness in swf-s?). So, my current vote goes for grey/red and generic warning.--ilmarine 20:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC) :The actual category "Aggressive monsters" its sort of redundant just a plain new that says "Aggressive" as it will be categorize in the monster one. :Ok just wanted to make sure all the options where noted. Tomorrow after i close the voting i will do the changes unless you want to do them. But just need an answer for this questions : :*Do we change the fields names and what we are asking? like :*#Aggresive true or false should be numbers (0,1) or letters (yes,no or A,N)? :*# } to just plain }? in fact the input of information its so simple we can just do it as } for the image and } for the true or false on aggresivity :*# Choose one : : | | |} :--Cizagna (Talk) 02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) I would vote for version 1 (this looks the most like our existing image boxes and tables). As for the code, I would propose the one i have just added. Only thing is, that I don't know for sure if the switch statement works. This would then check whether aggressive exists, if no display grey, if yes check if it is filled with 1, true, yes, y --> if is then display red, if something else display grey (ah, it should also convert the value to lower case first). I think we should always use variable names in templates so that everybody would understand.--ilmarine 08:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC) :Then its version one. Now i see that you already implemented in some pages the template:Monsterpic2. Any way If we are going to base on yes, y''' and '''1, that number is redundant and will only confuse people. Now im still on the idea shorter version of what we are going to pull like , A'' stands for aggressive and ''nothing or empty field would stand for neutral. Its clear as one can see that png stands for a image format aside from the fact that the name of the template is monster''pic'', and A would be weird but its not new that people experiment wiki with us clicking save page instead of preview in their first times here. Make your decision on how simple you want to go do the extra changes and implement when you want i leave it to you. --Cizagna (Talk) 20:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC) :We could very well add the switch code that checks for all possible correct answers (yes, y, 1, true, aggressive, aggro, a), this way the user who edits something wouldn't need to know the exact wording. Also, i don't like the idea of using only the extension, because i myself (for example) am not using imagenames that actually are the monster name all the time (mostly it's funny letter is names as with tanukuoi san or zatoishwan, but also all the different monsters who use male panda image, etc). This is easier than uploading the same image countless times and would also allow people who don't know about the exact naming convention to add images. So, my ideal template code would be: :If the "aggressive" line is not present, then the monster would also be non-aggro.--ilmarine 18:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)